wrinks_89 wrote:You mentioned the results of a poll taken by a greater number of people. I know the nec votes he won 18-14. I'm not disputing your point just saying it didn't seem to matter about the polls results as they voted to add his name to the ballots regardless of anything else.

Well, er, yes? What does a vote on their leadership election rules have to do with opinion polls? This was just to see if he could stand for re-election without needing to gain support from the MPs he's been failing to lead. It's got nothing to do with his chances of winning a second time. They've also tried to shut the gate after the horse has bolted on their membership eligibility rules. But apparently that doesn't apply to union members, so if more of them opt to vote this time, the result could still be different.

We will see. My gut instinct is that the types who throw bricks through opponent's windows aren't likely to stay and support a different leader, but the rest aren't prepared to fall in line behind a guy who's at odds with what they stood for because they know he's pulling further away from the national voting trend. It's hard to see a reconciliation either way.

I didn't say they had anything to do with it. Just said the results of the poll were irrelevant.

theadore wrote:
Unless they thought he wouldn't be able to run. There would have been a straight challenge if they thought they could beat him... instead we had weeks coups and trying to force him out the back door.

I thought the query over nominations was a bit of a shot in the dark. It's an absurd situation to have gotten into. You'd normally expect an incumbent leader to stand for re-election, but then you'd also expect him to stand down if he felt he wouldn't get enough support from the people he was leading to qualify anyway. What is Corbyn's objective in staying? What are his fervent supporters expecting to achieve? I know people say they like his ideology, but surely the reality has to set in that he can't implement any of it without elected MPs to back him up. At the last election, Labour lost overall to the Conservatives, lost voters to UKIP, lost Scotland to nationalists. It doesn't make sense to try to combat that by narrowing the appeal of the party within it's existing share of the electorate. For people who supposedly have an ingrained hatred of Tories, they're doing a good job of keeping them in power. Meanwhile, the one Labour leader to get elected in 40 years has become a reviled villain.

A general election would fix it. Labour members choose Labour candidates. If Labour members want Corbyn supporters as candidates then they will select them. People largely vote by party, the name on the ticket is irrelevant. The MPs appear to be out of step with the opinion of the party members. That bodes ill for the MPs in the long run unless they can connect with their membership again.

Ethiaa wrote:A general election would fix it. Labour members choose Labour candidates. If Labour members want Corbyn supporters as candidates then they will select them. People largely vote by party, the name on the ticket is irrelevant. The MPs appear to be out of step with the opinion of the party members. That bodes ill for the MPs in the long run unless they can connect with their membership again.

A general election caused the problem in the first place. The MPs are out of step with the party members, but the party members are out of step with the electorate.

Ethiaa wrote:A general election would fix it. Labour members choose Labour candidates. If Labour members want Corbyn supporters as candidates then they will select them. People largely vote by party, the name on the ticket is irrelevant. The MPs appear to be out of step with the opinion of the party members. That bodes ill for the MPs in the long run unless they can connect with their membership again.

A general election caused the problem in the first place. The MPs are out of step with the party members, but the party members are out of step with the electorate.

The second is largely irrelevant to the party members though isn't it. A party exists to represent the members after all.

Cos as I said, people vote for the party name, not the name on the ticket. That and the Labour membership has moved to the left while the MPs are largely the same centre right bunch they were before. As I said, it'll shake out in a general election. That's why the membership has the power to select candidates after all.

mrblackbat wrote:But if everyone votes for the party, not the name, how will it shake out in a general election anymore than it did last time?

I think eth is trying to say people vote for the party based on its merits at the time of the election, not that they just vote the same way every time. So the current crop of MPs will be replaced by more left wing candidates, and they'll take their chances on getting elected with whatever percentage of their current vote backs Corbyn, plus what they can pinch from the greens.

Of course, the ousted MPs may then firm their own party, take the anti-Corbyn members and voters with them and try to take on the Tories, ukip and lib dems.